ArticleScientific reports2026
Comprehensive benchmarking and explainable machine learning analysis of EEG imagery activity recognition.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Motor imagery (MI)-based brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) enable users to control external devices using EEG signals, offering great potential in assistive and rehabilitation technologies. However, MI recognition remains challenging due to EEG's low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), inter-subject variability, and complex spatiotemporal patterns. Existing approaches often suffer from limited accuracy, high computational cost, and poor interpretability. In response to these challenges, we present the first comprehensive benchmarking of the publicly available EEG-hand movement (EEG-HM) dataset. Our study aims to establish a standardized performance baseline, guide the selection of optimal models by jointly considering accuracy, prediction time, and explainability, and ultimately accelerate progress in MI-BCI development. We have proposed a two-stage optimization of machine learning models that employs both feature selection and hyperparameter tuning. We exploit five feature selection algorithms for selecting the best set of EEG electrodes and frequency bands, while Bayesian optimization is exploited for machine learning model optimization through hyperparameter tuning. Furthermore, to validate the neurophysiological basis of our model's decisions, we leverage explainable AI (XAI) algorithms-LIME and SHAP-quantifying the contributions of specific EEG electrodes and frequency bands to interpret its decision-making process. Through extensive simulations, the proposed two-stage optimization of the machine learning model demonstrates a superior performance in terms of accuracy, precision, and recall. This method outperforms the existing methods by 21.47% in accuracy with competitive prediction time. Its performance is further evaluated on the PhysioNet MI dataset, achieving a 4.67% accuracy improvement over state-of-the-art methods. Through LIME and SHAP, we provide the local and global explanations for no activity, left-hand, and right-hand imagery movements. Additionally, we analyze how various EEG frequency bands and electrode locations interact during the performance of different motor imagery hand movements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.